Dismissed

Rajesh Kumar v. Lrs of Lt. Smt. Sharifa Bai

Rajasthan HC7 Nov 2023CW/16454/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the dismissal of an application for impleadment in a civil suit regarding property possession. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the plaintiff is master of her lis and cannot be forced to implead a party against whom no relief is sought. The court directed that final arguments in linked title suits be heard together.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed; impleadment application in the suit rejected.

Rajesh Kumar Vs Lrs of Lt. Smt. Sharifa Bai — Property and Title | Rajasthan HC (2023)

¶1

(1 of 3) [CW-16454/2023]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JODHPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16454/2023

Rajesh Kumar

----Petitioner

Versus

Lrs of Lt. Smt. Sharifa Bai

¶8

----Respondent

¶9

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Saurabh Maheshwari
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Rajesh Joshi, Sr. Advocate
	assisted by
	Mr. Harshit Bhurani

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA Order

¶11

07/11/2023

¶12

Petition herein is directed against an order dated 10.07.2023 (Annex.9) passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Bhilwara, whereby an application under Order 1 Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, CPC), moved by the petitioner seeking impleadment as party/defendant in the Civil Original Suit No.40/2018, was dismissed.

¶13

The original plaintiff/respondent No.1, Smt. Sharifa Bai, initiated a suit (No.40/2018) on 05.04.2018, seeking possession, compensation, and permanent injunction. Defendant No.2, upon receiving summons, countered the claims in a written statement. 2.1. Prior to the above said suit, the petitioner also had filed a civil suit (No.94/2017) on 04.08.2017, with prayer to annul a sale deed dated 09.08.2016 related to Plot Nos.58 and 68. Smt. Sharifa Bai is defendant in this suit and contesting the same.

¶14

[CW-16454/2023]

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

2.2. While Sharifa Bai's suit was ongoing, the petitioner sought his impleadment therein and filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Plaintiff Sharifa Bai opposed the application, contending that the petitioner is neither necessary nor proper party. The court, after hearing arguments, rejected the application on 10.07.2023. hence the instant petition.

¶17

Heard.

¶18

Having seen the pleadings, it transpires that no relief has been sought by the respondent against the petitioner in the suit filed by Sharifa Bai. That apart, the petitioner has already taken substantive steps by filing a title suit against the plaintiffrespondent No.1 herein which is also pending before the same Court.

¶19

Even otherwise on the principle of dominus litis , trite law it is that a litigant who initiates a legal action has full control over the proceedings as to whom to implead as a party and against whom to seek relief and as to how he has to conduct the proceedings against each defendant. The plaintiff being master of his lis, therefore, cannot be compelled to implead the petitioner, against whom he has not sought any relief.

¶20

In the premise, I found no grounds to interfere in the impugned order which has been passed on valid reasons contained therein. However, in the parting I may hasten to add that, learned trial Court is at liberty to conduct both the trials separately, but it would be in the larger interest of the parties and also to arrive at just decision that final arguments in both cases be heard together.

¶21

[CW-16454/2023]

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

Needless to say, final arguments will be heard together once the respective evidence has been adduced by the parties in both the trials.

¶24

Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.

¶25

(ARUN MONGA),J

¶26

29-Dharmendra & DivyaP/-

¶27

Whether reportable - Yes / No

Rajesh Kumar v. Lrs of Lt. Smt. Sharifa Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh Kumar v. Lrs of Lt. Smt. Sharifa Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sunil Kumar Gupta Vs M/S. Shrey Associates

Mridula Shaikh Vs Lalit Singh

Hullas @ Pappu Vs Rinku Bhati

Sakur Khan Vs State of Rajasthan

Kamla Devi Vs Mahesh

S.P. Enterprises Vs State of Rajasthan